[63] Idealism is by its very nature contemplative; materialism, by contrast, is a system of action, corresponding to periods of social upsurge and to classes with revolutionary inclinations. Together with his entire generation, Chernyshevsky naturally took the standpoint of materialist monism...

[66] Chernyshevsky, who linked his philosophical worldview with definite practical strivings, understood that the newest materialism is the philosophy of the working class...

[71] Chernyshevsky's ethics strongly reminds one of Feuerbach's ethics; let us therefore say a few words about the latter. As Engels remarks*, Feuerbach's ethics is realistic in form, but in its essence completely abstract...

[74] Chernyshevsky continues his argumentation. A man who spends whole weeks at the bedside of a sick friend sacrifices his time and his freedom to his feeling of friendship: this "own" feeling in him is so strong that in satisfying it, he obtains greater pleasure than he would obtain from any other pleasures and even from freedom; and in violating it, leaving it unsatisfied, he would feel greater displeasure than he derives from the temporary restriction of his freedom. The same can be said of scientists who renounce personal life in the name of the interests of science, or of political figures "commonly called fanatics," — clarifies Chernyshevsky, that is to say, of revolutionaries...

[82] The theory of rational egoism should not mislead us. This seemingly individualistic doctrine is in fact thoroughly permeated with a social character. What matters is not the form, but the content of "rational egoism" — and, as we have seen above, Chernyshevsky and his followers resolved all disputed questions pertaining to this in a social spirit, in the sense of serving social and universal human interests.

At the foundation of the morality of rational egoism lies the idea of duty, but of free duty, the idea of choice corresponding to inner, organic nobility. "To be a defender of the oppressed or a defender of oppression, — the choice here is not difficult for an honest man"*. The theory of rational egoism — this is precisely the morality of honest people, the morality of the revolutionary generation of the 60s...

CHAPTER IV

however bitter it might be, and he never accepted the proposition: "the darkness of base truths is not as dear to us as the exalting deception"...

[145-147] Thus, Chernyshevsky recommended an optimistic attitude toward life precisely on the basis that in our time the main driving force of history is the industrial movement... "...Napoleon's victories in Spain and Germany brought some benefit to these countries, so how should not the victories of manufacturers and engineers, merchants and technologists bring some benefit? When industry develops, progress is assured. From this standpoint we are primarily delighted by the strengthening of the industrial movement among us." And further Chernyshevsky notes with enthusiasm several new facts from the realm of industrial development: the founding of a new steamship company on the Volga and its tributaries, an agricultural exhibition in Kiev, etc.*...

After what has been said above, we shall certainly not be surprised when we hear from Chernyshevsky that at the basis of political ferment there ordinarily lies social discontent**. We shall not be struck by his phrase, as if extracted from Marx's pamphlets of 1848-49, that "salt and wine participated in the fall of Napoleon, the Bourbons and the Orleanist dynasty"***. And we shall not be surprised reading in him an argument concerning the causes of Rome's fall, which he, following Pliny, explains by a change in land relations: "large estates ruined Italy - latifundia perdidere Italiam"****...

[152] In the article "Capital and Labor" Chernyshevsky shows that at the basis of ancient history lay class struggle. In Athens, in his view, in this struggle the purely political element predominated: the Eupatrids and the demos struggled almost exclusively for or against the extension of political rights to the mass of the demos*****. In Rome

NB
Cf.
Plekhanov
* Contemporary Review (November 1857). Works, III, 561-2. Cf. "Notes on Journals" (November 1856), where Chernyshevsky recognizes as the "most important of all improvements" after the Crimean War "the adoption of measures for the construction of an extensive network of railways." Works, II, p. 653.

** The July Monarchy. Works, VI, 63.

*** Cavaignac. Works, IV, 33.

**** "Capital and Labor." Works, VI, 15.

***** It is perfectly clear that Chernyshevsky is mistaken here, but this is an accidental error, since he ordinarily proves that at the basis of political struggle lies the collision of economic interests. Moreover, we also encounter such a phrase in Engels: "At least in modern history the state, the political order appears as a subordinate element, and civil
580
V. I. LENIN

the struggle for economic interests emerges far more prominently to the fore...

[154-155] Thus, for Chernyshevsky it was clear that contemporary social classes are formed in the process of production: to three elements of production - land, capital and labor - correspond three basic classes of modern society: landowners, the bourgeoisie and workers. In the notes to Mill he definitely points out that in general and in the whole the mutual relations of these three classes are determined by the threefold division of the product into rent, profit and wages...

[157-160] True, in Chernyshevsky there occurs the expression "the scourge of the proletariat," but he employs this expression properly during polemics with bourgeois Westernizers, inclined to perceive in Western Europe almost a paradise and unwilling to approach critically the negative sides of West European relations*... Chernyshevsky could, in the interests of a more correct defense of communal landownership, point out to Russian society the proletarianization threatening the people. But then social-democrats, objecting to Stolypin's agrarian measures, resort to an analogous argument (not in form, of course, but in essence)...

But what is a proletarian? Perhaps Chernyshevsky meant by it simply a poor man or the same "common person"? But listen to Chernyshevsky himself. Mocking Vernadsky for his phrase that in France "a multitude of proletarians own immovable property," Chernyshevsky writes: "We venture to ask, how could such a strangeness have come about? As often as we have had occasion to read economists, the proletarian always means among them a man who has no property; this is by no means the same as simply a poor man; yes, economists strictly distinguish this concept: a poor man simply

?
?
Cf. Marx "Das Kapital"
III, 7

society, the sphere of economic relations has decisive significance" (loc. cit., 57). As if this is only how it stands "in modern history"? This is, of course, a slip of the tongue. Let us not be overly strict with analogous slips of the tongue by Chernyshevsky.

* Notes on Journals ("Russian Conversation" and Slavophilism), March 1857. Works, III, 151. - At that time Chernyshevsky still hoped that the "best representatives" of Slavophilism, toward whom the government looked rather askance, would go hand in hand with the democrats on certain questions (in particular, on the question of political freedom and the assurance of the people's welfare).

Soon he was disappointed in this.

that this flattering opinion, scarcely unique among the lips of the stern Marx, must surely have had some serious grounds—especially when compared with Marx's strict opinions of other major representatives of socialist thought. And such grounds undoubtedly existed...

[332-336] The traits of utopians were completely foreign to Chernyshevsky—except for one: he too saw in the foundation of productive associations a means to demonstrate the advantages of cooperative economy over capitalist economy and an instrument for the propaganda of new ideas. But what a colossal difference between him and the utopians in this respect! First, he never declared the foundation of associations to be the sole means of social transformation, never attempted to doctrinaire impose this single form upon the working class and never opposed it to the historical forms of the workers' movement; second, he not only did not deny the political struggle and political tasks of the proletariat, but, on the contrary, as we saw above (chs. V and VI), reproached the socialists for timidity and lack of consistency in the implementation of these tasks, particularly on the question of seizing political power and revolutionary dictatorship. Political indifferentism, the narrow exclusivity of an inventor of the philosopher's stone, a cabinet thinker dreaming of benefiting stupid humanity with his ingenious inventions and looking down condescendingly upon the helpless floundering of the unenlightened masses in the depths of the historical maelstrom—in short, sectarian self-confidence and pedantry were absolutely foreign to him *.

And if in the sphere of scientific criticism of capitalism Chernyshevsky was a student of Fourier, Owen and Saint-Simon, then in the sphere of practical action and methods of political struggle he adhered rather to the Blanquists and Chartists...

However, Chernyshevsky did not believe in the imminent arrival of socialism. In this respect he looked at things more realistically than, for example, Marx and Engels did in the late 1840s. In the article "Economic Activity and Legislation" (1859) he says that we are still very far from socialism, "perhaps not a thousand years away, but probably more than a hundred or a hundred and fifty"*. This is why Chernyshevsky's hopes regarding the commune (while he still had these hopes) should not be interpreted to mean that he admitted the possibility of a sudden leap from Russian barbarism with its illiteracy and wooden wheels directly into the communist millennium. Probably he believed that if history, which "like a grandmother, terribly loves her youngest grandchildren"**, should unfold especially favorably for the Russian people, then something like what has been called in our time a "labor republic" would result, and in that case the preservation of the commune would make it possible to gradually transition to genuine collective agriculture with the application of machinery.

Thus, Chernyshevsky did not believe in the imminence of socialism, but held that it was necessary even now to study the socialist order in its foundations, "otherwise we shall go astray"***. But if complete and final implementation of the socialist order is now unthinkable, then partial implementation of socialism is thinkable. "Is it not the case," says Chernyshevsky, "that a thinker, developing his idea with but one concern for justice and consistency of the system in his purely theoretical works, is able to limit his advice in practical affairs of the present to only that part of his system which is feasible even for the present?" This is why Chernyshevsky considers it not without use, while preserving the integrity of his socialist aspirations, "to speak also of what is possible given contemporary reality." And further Chernyshevsky repeats his plan of productive associations, composed according to Fourier and Louis Blanc, with the caveat that this is merely one of "suppositions having in view the limits of what is possible for the present epoch"****.

NB

NB

* Works, IV, 450.
** Ibid., 329.
*** Note to Mill, 634 et seq.
**** In this respect Fourier's doctrine of guarantism as an intermediate stage between the capitalist order (civilization) and the socialist order (societary order, harmony) undoubtedly exerted influence upon Chernyshevsky. Guarantism in Fourier is such a social system in which the private interests dominant in civilization will be subordinated to guarantees of the public interest. The absolute right of private property will be limited; joint-stock communal offices will organize production and commerce on cooperative principles; a system of broad state

589

We shall not judge him strictly for this. Let us recall that Kautsky too, in his pamphlet "The Day After the Revolution," speaks of the gradual realization of socialism—though, it is true, after the seizure of power by the proletariat. Let us not forget further, if we take an epoch closer to Chernyshevsky's time, that the congresses of the International, whose work was influenced by Marx himself, also admitted such partial realization of socialism still within the framework of the bourgeois order (to which category they assigned the nationalization of land, the nationalization of railways, canals and mines, and their transfer to workers' associations, and so forth).

REMARKS ON THE BOOK BY YU. M. STEKLOV "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY..."

Source: PSS vol. 29

the young generation that stepped onto the stage after the defeat of the old regime during the Crimean War. Upon this spirited and bold generation Chernyshevsky placed all his hopes; for it he and Dobrolyubov wrote their articles, to it they addressed calls to go to the people. The novel by Chernyshevsky "What Is to Be Done?", written in the Peter and Paul Fortress, is devoted to the depiction of these new people. "Good and strong, honest and capable," Chernyshevsky addresses them in the preface to the novel, "you have only recently begun to appear among us, but there are already not a few of you and you are rapidly becoming more numerous." And when there are very many of you, then things will be very good...

These people's striving toward socialism, toward the establishment of the kingdom of labor, is a natural human striving. Their fiancée, the queen of freedom and equality, whispers to them magical words that attract every grieved and insulted being.
They exert influence on those around them, "develop" them, that is, instill in them a sense of human dignity and love for the suffering (characteristic of Chernyshevsky that Lopukhov, developing Vera Pavlovna, gives her to read the works of Fourier and Feuerbach). With liberals they part organically; they are propagandists of new democratic and socialist ideas: Owen is for them "a holy old man." They carefully follow science, are interested in anthropological philosophy, the chemical theories of Liebig, the laws of historical progress and questions of current politics, organize a circle that includes a couple of artisans and petty traders, a couple of officers, teachers and students; they set up sewing workshops on communist principles. But in essence their ideal is petty-bourgeois happiness; their activity bears predominantly a culturalist character; from direct political struggle, from participation in revolutionary undertakings they refrain for now and even fear it.

The true representative of the new people and the forerunner of people's fighters is Rakhmetov, the "exceptional man," as Chernyshevsky calls him. In Rakhmetov are united the merciless logic of Chernyshevsky himself with the vein of a true revolutionary agitator, which Chernyshevsky apparently lacked. In this respect Rakhmetov reminds one of Chernyshevsky's friend, the famous Polish revolutionary Serakovskiy, whom Nikolai Gavrilovich depicted in the "Prologue" under the name Sokolovskiy; but only Rakhmetov is free from the liberal enthusiasms of Sokolovskiy. "Agitators seem funny to me," says Volgin, but in reality he bows before them, feels that in them there is the instinct of true political figures and the practical energy of fighters for the people's cause*.

[365-375] If the Lopukhovs and Kirsanovs are a new type, then Rakhmetov is, so to speak, the newest type, the last word of Russian social development. Such people, according to Chernyshevsky, are few in number; thus far he has encountered only 8 specimens of this breed, including two women. "They are few," concludes Chernyshevsky in his description of Rakhmetov, "but in them all life blossoms; without them it would have withered, turned sour; they are few, but they give all people the ability to breathe, without them people would suffocate. There is a great mass of honest and good people, and such people are few; but they in it are like tea in tea, the bouquet in noble wine; from them it

* Serakovskiy was a close man in the circle of "Sovremennik," biographical information about him is set forth partly in the novel "Prologue," partly in Shaganov's pamphlet "N. G. Chernyshevsky on Hard Labor and in Exile" from the words of Nikolai Gavrilovich. In 1848 Serakovskiy, then a student, came home for Christmas vacation to his homeland in Podolia Province. At that time among the local Polish gentry an uprising was being prepared thanks to rumors of a movement that had begun in Galicia. Serakovskiy proposed to those whose heads were aflame not to hurry with decisive action until he himself could travel to the border and find out what the matter was. On the way he was seized and "on suspicion of intention to leave abroad" was exiled as a common soldier to the Orenburg Line battalions—mainly for frank and bold conversations with military investigators. At the beginning of the new reign he was promoted to officer, left for Petersburg and entered the military academy, which he completed with distinction, and was then sent by the government abroad on some military-technical assignments. In England he became acquainted with Palmerston, who introduced him to Queen Victoria. In 1863 he joined the Polish uprising, was commander of the Kovno revolutionary detachment, was taken prisoner and hanged by Muravyev. Chernyshevsky depicted this remarkable man under the name Sokolovskiy in the "Prologue."

Merciless toward himself, he in the novel somewhat good-naturedly mocks the passionate Sokolovskiy for his optimism: "Boleslav Ivanovich and I are amusing... we expect a storm in a swamp," he says. But it is evident throughout that he deeply loved and respected this pale enthusiast with a fiery, soul-piercing gaze, a knight without fear and reproach, an agitator with a practical vein, a hot heart, but a cold head, unafraid in the most dangerous moments and always ready to sacrifice his life to the cause of people's liberation. The pages devoted to the description of Sokolovskiy are the best in the novel and are distinguished by astonishing artistic power. —

In the novel Volgin refuses to draw closer to Sokolovskiy on the grounds that the latter, as an energetic and self-sacrificing man, will not long remain under the sway of liberal illusions and will inevitably become involved in some revolutionary undertakings; maintaining acquaintance with such a man is not without danger. In reality, of course, matters stood otherwise. But it is characteristic of Chernyshevsky that he conspires even in a novel written in distant exile, long after the events depicted in it.

603

...impact on the society "Young Russia." Whether the emissary succeeded in his mission is not precisely known, but it is possible that Chernyshevsky's convictions influenced the Muscovites. In any case, when Ballod's quarters were searched, the manuscript of a proclamation was found, titled "A Warning," which appeared to be as it were a satisfaction of Chernyshevsky's desire. But whether this proclamation truly belonged to the activists of the Central Revolutionary Committee has never been precisely established*.

The question of Chernyshevsky's relationship to M. Mikhailov remains equally obscure, and in particular, to his revolutionary enterprise, that is, to the dissemination of the well-known proclamation "To the Young Generation." The text of this proclamation was written by N. Shelgunov; Mikhailov printed it in London at Herzen's and smuggled it into Russia sealed in the bottom of a suitcase. Whether Chernyshevsky knew of Shelgunov and Mikhailov's scheme is unknown; but that upon his arrival in Petersburg he was initiated into this affair, Pantelev asserts categorically...

...In any case, one thing is clear: if Chernyshevsky himself did not take active part in the various manifestations of the revolutionary movement that was then beginning, he took a lively interest in all of them, knew about many**, and even ideologically directed some of them.

Was Chernyshevsky the author of the appeal "To the Masters' Peasants"? Lemke and Rusanov think he was***. We say: thou, O Lord, knowest! Pantelev reports, citing Mikhailovsky, who heard the account from Shelgunov, that in the winter of 1861 Chernyshevsky wrote a proclamation "To the People"; Shelgunov recopied this proclamation in altered handwriting and gave it to M. Mikhailov, who passed it to Vsevolod Kostomarov (on him below) for publication****. Evidently, we are speaking of the proclamation "To the Masters' Peasants." Even if we admit that Chernyshevsky wrote the first half of it (although neither Lemke nor Rusanov provide any direct evidence of this; similarity of style and content proves nothing, as we have already said above), - so, even if we admit that the first half of the proclamation was composed by Chernyshevsky, the second half was certainly not written by him. Chernyshevsky would never have allowed himself to tell the people that in France and in England (in 1861) colonels and generals broke their hats before the village elder and that the people replaced kings they disliked; he would not have said that Englishmen and Frenchmen live well, that justice there is righteous and equal for all, and so forth*. Incidentally, Rusanov too, probably for these same reasons, surmises that the appeal "To the Masters' Peasants" did not come entirely from Chernyshevsky's pen.

Comparing all that we know of Chernyshevsky's life, of his character and views, we in the end do not venture to answer categorically the question of his direct participation in the revolutionary movement. Most likely he did not participate in it directly; but that he knew of all the essential manifestations of the then-current revolutionary movement, that the direct participants in the latter consulted with him and reckoned with his guidance, that in any case they derived from conversations with him and from his writings the conviction of the necessity of practical attempts, which Chernyshevsky himself, by the indecisive and sluggish cast of his character, by his impracticality and bookishness, perhaps was not capable of**, this is hardly subject to doubt... Whether Chernyshevsky desired this or not, whether he refrained from any instigation, as Pantelev recounts, and used every suitable occasion to emphasize the difficulties awaiting revolutionaries and the strength and cunning of the enemy, his writings awakened conscience and imperiously impelled toward the struggle for the people's liberation.

NB

* Lemke. "Political Trials," p. 109 et seq.

** Of Chernyshevsky's broad information in this sphere the following, in itself a minor fact, reported by Pantelev, bears witness: "I was once extremely struck by how, it must have been in April (1862), he turned to me with the question: by what considerations had I objected in September 1861 in the student committee to certain excessively sharp proposals?" ("From Memoirs," pt. 2, p. 179).

*** Lemke. "Political Trials," 194, 335-6; Rusanov, loc. cit., 327.

**** Pantelev. "From Memoirs," pt. 2, p. 181.

614
V. I. LENIN

* The text of the appeal is found in Lemke, l. c., pp. 336-346. It begins with the words: "Greetings to the Masters' Peasants from their well-wishers. You waited for the tsar to give you freedom, - and now the tsar's will has come forth." What follows is a devastating critique of the 1861 reform from the standpoint of peasant interests, and gradually the reader is prepared for a critique of the autocratic system as the fundamental factor of the people's sufferings. The author of the proclamation endeavors, working with facts, to undermine the "tsarist legend." The significance of political freedom and the necessity of struggle for it is clarified. Next is proven the solidarity of interests of all strata of the peasantry, in particular former serf and state peasants, and the solidarity of interests of the people and soldiers, who should gain greatly from revolution. Attention is drawn to the necessity of organization among the people - "the peasants must all come to an agreement amongst themselves, so as to be united when the time comes." And until that time arrives, one must refrain from partial uprisings and wasteful expenditure of strength...

** To Chernyshevsky, perhaps, apply words he spoke of Necker: "He appeared the more irresolute and troubled, the farther-sighted his vision was: irresolution is the weak side of penetration" ("Turgot," l. c., 231).

615

...tolerate such an agitator. Surely you will find means to save us from such a pernicious man!.. Now, seeing his tendencies no longer in words but in deeds, all the very liberal people, sufficiently prudent that they recognize the necessity of monarchy's existence among us, have distanced themselves from him and are convinced that if you do not remove him, there will be trouble—there will be blood; there is no place for him in Russia—he is dangerous everywhere, except perhaps in Berezovo or Giziga; it is not I speaking thus,—scholars and able people spoke thus, wishing with all their hearts for a constitution*... And you will not avoid bloodshed and will destroy us all—this is a band of mad demagogues, desperate heads,—this "Young Russia" has shown you in its prospectus all its savage inclinations; perhaps they will be beaten down, but how much innocent blood will be shed for them! At the same time I heard that in Voronezh, in Saratov, in Tambov,—everywhere there are committees of such socialists, and everywhere they are inflaming the youth... Society is in danger, homeless ruffians are ready for anything, and you must not sleep; sin will fall upon you if you allow them to massacre, and it will happen if you doze off even slightly or content yourselves with half-measures... This mad band thirsts for blood and horrors and will rush straight ahead,—do not ignore it. Deliver us from Chernyshevsky—for the sake of general peace."

This denunciation served as another reminder to the government about Chernyshevsky, upon whom the Third Section had long since directed its benevolent attention...

[398-400] On the telegraph denunciation of a spy, one of Herzen's visitors, Vetoshnikov was arrested at the border, and all of Herzen's letters were found on him. For the Third Section, the aforementioned notation in the letter to Serno-Solovyevich was sufficient to arrest Chernyshevsky the very next day, July 7th. All of Chernyshevsky's papers and part of his books were seized, and he himself was taken to the Alekseyevsky ravelin...

The arrest of Chernyshevsky made an extraordinarily strong impression on the democratic intelligentsia... Revolutionary youth were, of course, shaken by the arrest of their ideological leader. The reactionaries triumphed, rejoicing that their most dangerous enemy was neutralized, as they hoped, forever. But the liberals too, in their hearts, rejoiced at Chernyshevsky's downfall, deeply despising him and mercilessly exposing their true nature. Thus, one of the leaders of liberalism at that time and a good acquaintance of Chernyshevsky's, Kavelin, in a letter to Herzen did not conceal his true feeling: "News from Russia, from my point of view,
NB
* Of course, this vile informer speaks thus, and one should not rely on the factual accuracy of his reports. But he correctly noted the hostile attitude of the liberals toward the great socialist.

618
V. I. LENIN

is not so bad... The arrests do not surprise me and, I confess to you, do not seem outrageous... I love Chernyshevsky very, very much, but such a draft, tactless and presumptuous person I have never yet seen. And was there something worth dying for! That the fires are connected with proclamations—there is now not the slightest doubt about this"*.

Such was the Judas kiss of the liberal, till now surrounded by a halo of brilliance in the eyes of our "constitutional-democratic" bourgeoisie. Repeating the vile police gossip about the connection of St. Petersburg fires with revolutionary proclamations, these gentlemen gave moral justification to the rampage of repression with which the reaction fell upon the democrats. And meanwhile, if one could connect the epidemic of fires of that time with any political strivings whatever, then in any case not with the activity of revolutionaries. Senator Zhdanov, sent two years later to the Volga region to investigate the fires that had taken place in Saratov, Simbirsk, and so on, established that they were connected with the intrigues of those reactionaries and serf-owners, who sought to intimidate the government, terrorize society, and thus hinder the cause of reforms...

The Third Section did not want to release its victim from its talons. On August 1st, Potapov presented to the commission a memorandum compiled from denunciations of police agents (from this memorandum, incidentally, it is revealed that from autumn 1861 Chernyshevsky had been under unrelenting secret police surveillance)...

Chernyshevsky was not interrogated. He patiently sat in the fortress, expecting day by day his release, as he was firmly convinced that the government possessed no serious evidence against him. He worked assiduously and corresponded with his wife. In a letter of October 5th, which the commission did not deem it possible to transmit to his wife but instead attached to the file, was contained the following terrible phrase, in the opinion of the sleuths: "Our life with you belongs to history; hundreds of years will pass, and our names will still be dear to people; and they will remember us with gratitude, when they have already forgotten almost all who lived at the same time as us. Thus we must not lower ourselves in terms of courage and character before the people who will study our life" (further follows a plan of future works of which we spoke in Chapter I). In these words of Chernyshevsky's the commission discerned an extraordinary
!

NB

NB
* Rusanov, l. c., p. 276.

619